Preface
The April 2015 Customer Forum focused on the results of the 2014 Sightlines Customer Survey and updates on F&S services, with Executive Director Al Stratman and Director of Operations, Maintenance & Alterations Carl Wegel. In addition to the plenary session, Building Maintenance Coordinator Roger Bensyl led a breakout session on the service request workflow process and Director of Utilities & Energy Services Kent Reifsteck conducted a session discussing the campus’ Utilities Production and Distribution Master Plan.

Customer Forum Plenary Session

Dee Dee Caneva, Director of Customer Relations & Communications, welcomed attendees to the 7^th Customer Forum and said that 39 of the 44 recommendations made by the customer focus groups after the 2010 survey have been implemented. Caneva stressed F&S is committed to achieving long-term progress and is working to complete the recommendations. The feedback provided to F&S as a part of the F&S Customer Service Initiative has directly enhanced service delivery and improved customer service across the organization.

Executive Director Al Stratman discussed the results of the 2014 Customer Survey, administered by Sightlines, LLC.  Sightlines works with other Big Ten Conference schools and provides benchmarking comparisons of campus assets and stewardship profiles. Questions about five divisions/departments were part of the survey: Building Services, Building Maintenance, Construction Services, Capital Programs, and Safety and Compliance.

Seven hundred fifty-seven respondents is the highest number of participants ever for an F&S Customer Survey.  This group included facility managers, business managers, deans, directors, department heads, and my.FS portal users. Eighty-three percent indicated F&S meets, exceeds, or far exceeds their expectation for general satisfaction. Stratman said one of the organization’s goals is to continue to increase the general satisfaction number in the future. Another takeaway from the results, in the division and departmental areas, is that the scores have remained relatively consistent over the last four years.

One significant jump in the survey was that 74% of respondents said the work request process meets their needs. That is a significant increase because the beginning of the service request process must meet both the needs of the customer and F&S. Better communication at the start typically leads to a more efficient process throughout. The results indicate that Asset Information Management (AiM), F&S’ work management system, has been helpful in meeting the customers’ needs.   

The individual customer comments were analyzed to evaluate if there were common themes tied to the survey results. Communication with the Crafts & Trades was one topic identified and a process that is an on-going focus area for F&S. There must always be a balance between providing accurate updates to the customer and being efficient in getting the work completed. The lack of status updates regarding work requests is another area cited for improvement by customer comments. Many customers also said the work process takes too long. F&S is committed to a partnership with its customers to make lasting changes to improve the delivery of service work and address these areas.

Director of Operations, Maintenance & Alternations (OMA) Carl Wegel discussed survey results pertaining to Building Maintenance and Building Services. In the Building Maintenance portion of the survey, Wegel said the two items he considers most important received the highest marks:  “performing work courteously/professionally” and “performing work competently.” In Building Services (custodial and Public Functions), the areas that received the highest ratings were “custodians I encounter are professional” and “special requests are accommodated.” 

In the cost and communication area, ratings have improved in being “asked for feedback” and “providing information as work progresses.” Wegel said these results are reflective of creation of the BSW Early Day Shift and Self-Directed Work Teams. As a part of this transition, the majority of Building Services staff has shifted to working at least half the day right alongside the customer. BSWs are better able to interact with the people they serve and are better able to communicate with customers concerning needs.

Wegel explained the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) program through which F&S staff check in and check out of a building with a specific person when performing work. There are currently six buildings in the SPOC program (Davenport Hall, Harker Hall, Main Library, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Transportation Building, Veterinary Medicine) with two more, the Woese Institute for Genomic Biology and Lincoln Hall, to be added in the near future. OMA will add additional contacts into the program upon request.  Anyone interested in joining the SPOC program is encouraged to contact Manager of Customer Relations Tim Aden (taden2@illinois.edu).

The Maintenance Zone concept divides campus into six areas, with a zone manager in each section who coordinates the work of nine to 12 Crafts & Trades personnel. There are three zone offices, with two zones sharing each office. (See zone map). The physical locations of the zone offices allow one zone to provide backup assistance to the other when necessary. The zone concept is constantly evolving to better meet the needs of the customer.  Zone workers are now conducting facilities improvement service work that is 16 hours or less in the zones. Work beyond that level is still coordinated by the Crafts & Trades shops located in the Physical Plant Service Building.

Wegel said it will be important for F&S to continue with its commitment to the Preventive Maintenance (PM) program. PM began with a budget of $140K in FY01 and has grown to $3.9M through a progressive reallocation of the Building Maintenance Budget, and campus support. Sightlines research indicates that for each dollar spent on preventive maintenance there is $2.50-$3.00 cost avoidance on future reactive maintenance.

Wegel concluded his comments by providing an update on the Work Management Center (WMC). He said the development of the WMC ensures everyone on campus has an equal opportunity access F&S services. The WMC continues to develop with the intention of moving F&S closer to better communicating when work is performed.

Next, Stratman described the continuing transformation of the campus environment. In FY15, F&S will execute $236M of capital construction projects; from FY12-FY14 $153M was performed on average. Predictions are to sustain those levels through FY17. Crafts & Trades consistently perform about $30M per year of project work while Contractor Services and Job Order Contracting (JOC) accounts for $18M. At any one time there are approximately 450 “small” projects in the construction queue, with 67% of that work under $5K. Combined Contractor Services and JOC work has grown 111% since FY11. F&S Crafts & Trades specialize in the fast, single trade jobs, as well as in preventive maintenance. Whether it is through Crafts & Trades or through Contractors Services/JOC, F&S wants to ensure the best available method is used so project work is completed when needed.

Stratman then spoke about the F&S Employee Satisfaction Initiative, which began with an internal survey. Four employee focus teams, consisting of employees from throughout the organization, then identified strategies and changes for improving F&S operations and processes so that there is improved employee morale and better service delivery for the customer. Forty-six percent of the recommendations have been completed or are already in progress.

Stratman said budget reductions will impact everyone on campus. F&S is just like any other unit since at this time the organization does not know definitively what services will be affected. F&S will look for ways to reduce the impact of its budget cuts to customers, but ultimately service delivery will be impacted.

Sightlines research indicates that other Big Ten universities have funded their facilities and services more consistently over time. Currently F&S is funding at 23% of FY14 target stewardship levels while peers institutions are at 28%.  An understanding of funding of envelope/mechanical needs vs. space/programming needs is also significant. Over the past 15 years, the campus has funded an average of 64% of the target need for space/programming, compared to 28% of the target need for envelope/mechanical systems.  This means that funding to address building envelope/mechanical needs is being disproportionately neglected as buildings age. Since there is not enough capital investment to meet campus needs, the deferred maintenance backlog continues to grow, which is why it is more important than ever for funding to be directed to the most critical programmatic areas.

Therefore, F&S’ top spending priority going forward will be preventive maintenance. As much as possible, F&S will try not to impact that maintenance, because doing so will only create more expenses in the future. Prioritizing project selection will be essential to maintaining campus’ condition without significant deterioration. A mission condition index, which measures programmatic index, should be used to help prioritize campus needs and allocate funding.

Stratman encouraged attendees to make suggestions for future F&S customer communications. With budget reductions, open houses and forums may no longer be as feasible. F&S will continue to develop different ways to provide critical information to customers.

Personnel Note
Dean Henson is retiring June 30^th and all of F&S thanks him for his service as Superintendent of Building Maintenance. Henson has been integral to providing service delivery on campus.

Q: How will the SPOC program affect the communication for office managers in buildings with multiple departments?

A: For service work, we commit to have our shops touch base with the SPOC in that building. The commitment from the units is to have one SPOC per building. The SPOC knows the people and units in the facility and can communicate work statuses and updates to them very effectively. Some buildings are a challenge because there isn’t a true SPOC, but that is what we need to make the program work. The zone concept, knowing your zone manager, is also important because the communications effort is layered and zone managers are a great resource for service work updates as well.

Q:   How do I become a formal SPOC participant? I submit all of the work requests for multiple buildings, but there is some disconnect on when work is occurring and when things are done?

A:   The SPOC program is designed for one building, but F&S would consider a hybrid system where a SPOC could be in charge of more than one building. The difficulty would be that F&S employees would report their activities at one place in each building.  The SPOC would have to visit all those locations to see the summary of activities. Status updates are difficult because there are more than 40,000 service requests per year, and staff must balance communicating to customers with the time needed to complete work. Additionally, there are tools in the my.FS Portal that give customers the ability to track status updates more effectively. Anyone interested in joining the SPOC program is encouraged to contact Manager of Customer Relations, Tim Aden (taden2@illinois.edu).

Q: Customers want to know when a crew has been dispatched to perform their work and would it be possible to include an electronic capability to notify multiple building occupants with one message?

A:  At this time, we don’t have the capability to electronically message through the SPOC program when maintenance personnel check in and check out, but it is something we are evaluating for the future. The Zone concept feeding work in a more methodical way will also help with this aspect.

Q:  With the budget an unknown, is there a process in place to make the cost for services more transparent?  The total project cost is unknown for months at a time

A:  Part of the complication is that our costs post to Banner in our systems only once-a-month, which can cause some delays. Job Order Contracting and Contractor Services work are both handled differently in terms of invoicing which might be another cause for charges posting at later dates. We are working to expedite some of these timing aspects in the billing process. We need to find out what specific type of work is causing the most problems from a costing standpoint and focus on that. Fixed cost is another option in this regard.

Q:  How would it be best to manage last minute service requests and establish a clear chain of communication?

A:  This is a challenge whether it is a quick service call or a large capital project. If F&S has a point of contact established, then we can always keep that individual in the loop, whether other conversations are occurring or not.

Customer Submitted Questions

Q: We are curious as why we no longer get an itemized estimate, just a flat price quote.  2. What is the reasoning for the quote on some estimates, 'I also confirm that I did not solicit bids from outside contractors for this work?

A: There has never been a practice of itemizing “budget” estimates, except in cases for divisions of work. Coordinators are encouraged to identify with customers items of special interest, options and/or allowances. In addition, if there is concern of cost, coordinators are available to walk through the estimating sheet with the customer so that he/she can better identify areas of concern. F&S refrains from directly competing with contractors.

Q:   I was just wondering if there are any continued progress/updates on the Archibus/Web Central database system.  It has been such a great resource and tool, and at one point there had been discussions about using the database more deeply - such as assigning individuals (UIN) to specific spaces, etc.  Thanks!

A: Our current priority related to space data management has shifted to migrating space information into a central data management system called Asset Information Management (AiM).  We intend to continue support for Archibus/Web Central as a resource for campus. We also want to explore options and opportunities for space data in AiM.

Q:  I am interested in work order and cost management. We have over 200 open work orders; we struggle with managing the costs (both time and material) charged to them.

A:  F&S has developed online tools in the my.FS Portal to help with the tracking of work orders through the Work Order Reporting and Work Status Communications tools.  Specifically in the Work Status Communication tool you can receive twice daily notifications regarding materials, labor, and completed phases, etc. based on your preferences. On the my.FS page, the Work Order Reporting tool allows customers to see the current status of their work order as well as total costs.

Q:  Will the service request process also include leased space?

A: All Service Requests or Maintenance related requests by the users in leased spaces should be directed to our Capital Program Division and Capital Planning Architect Brett Stillwell. Those requests will then either be directed through the service request process or to the landlord/property manager per the lease agreement.

Q:  We have some open work orders that have been assigned, but I feel like we are in limbo due to the fact that it has been 2-3 weeks and we have no update on when the work will be performed. Are there plans to have the assigned trades get in direct contact with the customer regarding the times and dates work orders will be fulfilled?

A: We are currently working on new processes to be able to better notify customers of the status of their work orders. There are procedures in place that require craftspersons to notify a customer, if the customer requests that in the work order. Many work orders get assigned, but are delayed. Some of the delays are due to material acquisition; some work is delayed in lieu of other higher priority work.

Manager of Customer Relations, Tim Aden, Building Maintenance Coordinator, Roger Bensyl, and Maintenance Zone Manager, Greg Moen, led the discussion on the service request process. This session described the entire life cycle of various types of service requests, from when a service request is submitted, to work prioritization by maintenance planners and zone supervisors, then release of the work to the zones and shops. For the purposes of this session, only regular maintenance and facilities improvements work (service work 16 hours or less) were discussed.

The first step in the process involves the customer requesting a service via the my.FS Portal, phone, or email. If the need is urgent, the request will instantly be dispatched to the appropriate zone or central shop, depending on the nature of the work. Work which falls into the category of needing to be dispatched includes but is not limited to: doors and windows not closing properly and causing a security issue, broken or shattered glass potentially causing harm, clogged toilets, and elevator issues. Requests not considered urgent will be assigned a work order number by the F&S Service Office and be assigned to a maintenance planner in the case of maintenance or service work, or will be sent to an energy services shop or a construction superintendent for work germane to those groups. .

A maintenance planner uses a scoring matrix to prioritize service work based on the description provided by the customer. The planners take certain aspects into account when scoring work including the type of equipment affected and the impact on the customer if work is delayed. Because this process relies primarily on information in the service request, it is important that the customer be as descriptive as possible when initially submitting a request to help properly prioritize work.

The scoring matrix assigns a priority code of immediate, high, normal, low, or slight. Work which is categorized as either immediate or high will be addressed within one to five business days. This includes health/safety concerns, structural damage, or issues leading to further damage if not addressed in a timely fashion.

The remaining work, which makes up the majority of work orders, will be assigned to one of the three additional categories. Work prioritized as normal or low consists of routine maintenance, is funding or schedule dependent, and does not present an immediate risk to building systems or occupants if left unaddressed. Replacement of a single lighting fixture in a large lecture hall or hanging a picture are examples of normal or low priority work categories. Such work will be assigned a pending status and addressed based on age or postponed until other like work in the area is necessary.

Work prioritized as slight will not be done in the near future and may be delayed for an indeterminate period of time. It may be assigned a status of deferred due to lack of sufficient funding and/or because a future construction project will address the issues. Examples include interior painting or a broken toilet in a large restroom scheduled to be remodeled. Deferred tasks are reviewed periodically and may be addressed if the opportunity exists or funding becomes available.

Maintenance planners continuously monitor workloads to determine whether a pending work order may be released to the maintenance zones. Once that has been affirmed, planners “release” work to the zone supervisor’s workload queue. The age of the work, access to the area, and the degree of impact to the customer are all determining factors of when work will commence. For instance, work in classrooms and lecture halls may be done during academic breaks to avoid disturbing students and faculty. Also, time sensitive work, such as that relating to commencement, is given a high priority. 

Currently, there is 15,000 total hours of backlog work in the zones while F&S has 360 available man hours per day – approximately eight weeks of backlog. Though the gap is large, prioritizing work and giving zone supervisors the discretion to assign work based on set criteria make the process manageable.   

Q: Who should you contact for a status update on a maintenance work order?

A: The F&S Service Office 217-333-0340, fsserviceoffice@illinois.edu is the first point of contact for questions regarding work orders. The staff will answer your question or route your inquiry to the appropriate personnel.

Q: Is there a reference key for defining AiM Work Order Statuses?

A: Explanations of AiM Work Order Statuses can be found in the F&S Definition of Terms http://go.illinois.edu/fsterms. Statuses defined include Dispatch, Pending, Released, In Process, Completed, Closed, and Cancelled. If further clarification on a specific work order is needed, please contact the F&S Service Office 217-333-0340, fsserviceoffice@illinois.edu.

Q: Where can I find which Maintenance Zone my building is assigned to?

A: The campus is divided into 6 maintenance zones (See Zone Map). Your respective zone supervisor can be found at fs.illinois.edu/services/maintenance/maintenance-zones/zone-supervisors.

Utilities Master Plan Breakout Session   

Director of Utilities & Energy Services Kent Reifsteck provided an update on stakeholder engagement for the Utilities Production and Distribution Master Plan. The Utilities Master Plan report evaluates existing university production and distribution systems and develops model scenarios for the future of the Urbana campus related to projected growth levels and the associated energy demand impacts. The plan outlines numerous utilities models through the year 2049, detailing the different infrastructure commitments required to support various campus facility profiles.

The last major review of production and distribution systems on the Urbana campus occurred in the 1990s, focusing on heating, electrical, and cooling needs. Those efforts helped establish the Central Chilled Water System, brought about the addition of two gas turbines at Abbott Power Plant and also the new Campus Electrical Substation and Distribution System.  The execution of that work required major funding commitments. UES continues to service $200M in remaining debt payments, a fixed component in the campus utility rate structure.

The Utilities Master Plan indicates that the University of Illinois is well positioned to provide safe, reliable, efficient, environmentally compliant, and cost-effective energy production for years to come, through Abbott Power Plant and its diversified fuel cogeneration capabilities. Cogeneration uses steam to provide both heat and power to the campus.  The process produces less than half of the carbon emissions electricity that is purchased from the electric grid. The best available emission control technologies at Abbott Power Plant are also important factors in lowering the university’s emissions, and allow the plant to operating reliably below proposed regulatory limits.  The importance of the university maintaining EPA air permits was also emphasized due to recent increased regulatory restrictions.

The Utilities Master Plan provided several universal recommendations:   Limit campus growth to net zero gross square feet (GSF), expand the current energy conservation programs in conjunction with Retrocommissioning (RCx), increase the electric import capacity, and provide heat recovery and energy reduction strategies on all new capital projects. 

By maintaining the existing square footage profile, the need to build additional utilities infrastructure is lessened along with the cost associated with acquiring and installing new utility assets. From a planning perspective, it is important that UES receive accurate information regarding future campus growth to adequately prepare to meet campus peak energy demand.

Utilities Master Plan modeling for zero growth accounts for centrally funded energy conservation programs, but those efforts are balanced by anticipated programmatic updates to buildings. For example, the Lincoln Hall renovation brought about more efficient building systems, although overall energy demand actually increased due to the addition of conditioned space throughout the entire facility.

Aggressive and consistent energy conservation initiatives starting in FY07 helped reduce campus energy intensity use by 24%. The reductions have allowed the university to maintain its existing production and distribution systems without the need for major expansion. 

The university has been successful reducing energy use in existing buildings. Energy conservation is one of the best returns on investment for campus, with project payback periods and energy savings guarantees through RCx, Energy Performance Contracting, and lighting retrofits. Incorporating new technologies into university operations may mean even greater energy demands being placed on campus in the future and a further commitment to more extensive conservation programs.

UES will develop greater efficiencies whenever practical, incorporating advancements in technology – often to respond to growing technological research needs. The $10M Thermal Energy Storage system provides additional cooling capacity for campus when electrical prices are lower. This system came online in part to help meet the energy requirements of the National Petascale Supercomputing Facility.

Right now, the university faces limits on importing electricity from the grid due the current setup of Ameren’s transmission and distribution system. Feasibility studies are being performed to assess the potential to increase the 60MW import limit to help address peak energy demands on campus. At times, Abbott Power Plant must generate 20MW in the summer to assist in meeting peak demand while staying below the 60 MW import limit. A greater import limit would allow for more flexibility and help to ensure greater reliability. 

Option analysis from the Utilities Master Plan looked at conventional model scenarios, similar to the current asset configuration, while also analyzing system options that included items such as a heating only plant and higher percentages of renewable energy.

In 2008, the university signed the American College University President’s Climate Commitment pledging to be carbon neutral by 2050. To meet that goal, there must be a short-term plan in place to ensure energy reliability while also developing a long-term plan that meets the 2050 goals. The timing of the master plan is also important relative to campus updating the Illinois Climate Action Plan (iCAP) and establishing a new set of goals and improvement options. 

The master plan emphasized the importance of retaining fuel flexibility at Abbott Power Plant including maintaining the existing coal assets through the end of life and improvements in its natural gas assets which reduces its dependency on coal.  Maintaining energy purchase diversity increases reliability while reducing market risks assets. 

By the end of 2015, a 20.8 acre Solar Farm is expected to provide approximately 2% of the electricity demand for campus, helping to meet renewable energy goals outlined in the iCAP.  One of the benefits of installing a solar array is that it matches the profile for when campus needs the energy most, something more difficult to achieve with wind power. UES also purchased Renewable Energy Credits to fulfill current ICAP renewable energy goals and is continuing to evaluate options for a Wind Power Purchase Agreement.  

State-level budgetary discussions will have a great impact on the future of energy conservation initiatives on campus. RCx has been historically funded with grant money and will require greater reinvestment in the future to achieve sustained energy conservation results. Approximately 8M GSF of improvement to the operation and maintenance of building systems has already been provided by RCx teams with a cost avoidance of $27M.

The next step for the Utilities Master Plan is direct stakeholder feedback. The master plan is an ongoing process that establishes a foundation for the future utilities planning and allows for the incorporation of new ideas and technological advancements. Geothermal, heat recovery chillers, wind power, and the development of an emergency generator / black start system and power management controls are a few of the ideas currently being discussed with stakeholders.

Q:  How can geothermal be better incorporated as a part of the Utilities Master Plan? 

A:   Limited geothermal on a case-by-case may be possible, but converting the campus entirely from steam to hot water would present significant challenges. Geothermal and other options will continue to be evaluated in response to technological advancements and market factors.

Q:  How do units get involved in requesting energy conservation project funding to help move upgrades along?

A:  That is a discussion that Utilities & Energy Services is welcome to have at any time. One of the ways we might be able to focus in on specific projects is through the use of the Revolving Loan Fund and project paybacks.

Q:  What is the next step for the Master Plan and who do you take this information to? It seems like it needs to go to the dean-level to have the ability to impact discussions and help formulate policy changes, not necessarily a grass roots approach.

A:   The presentation is being prepared for all audiences, including deans and directors, because everyone has a role in energy conservation and the setting of strategies necessary to support those efforts.
​